The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Is the development pathway broken?

Roar Pro
26th June, 2017
Advertisement
The Socceroos could build depth by developing a domestic-based B team. (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Roar Pro
26th June, 2017
111
1201 Reads

With several less than stellar performances from the Socceroos over the last few matches, the background noise has grown around the need for change.

Lack of opportunities in the A-League for young players and number of games being played by our teenagers are both areas that have been touted as possible reasons for a perceived lack of talent making its way through the pathway.

One area that is increasingly attracting criticism though is the National Curriculum and its implementation.

When the FFA launched the National Football Curriculum (NC) back in May 2009 its intent was to provide a blueprint for youth development within our country. At its heart the blueprint emphasized a small sided football approach to development and borrowed heavily from the Belgium National Curriculum.

A second revised version of the curriculum was released in 2013 to better articulate the implementation of the approach after feedback that the originally document lacked the clarity required to implement it successfully.

Since the launch the Skill Acquisition Program (SAP), a key plank of the NC at the 10-13 age group, has slowly rolled out across the country and all states. The introduction of the national Premier League (NPL) has also helped embed the SAP program at the elite level.

But has it been a success? Criticism of recent performances of the Socceroos seems intent on tying several problems to the NC, a lack of defending nous, inability to adjust to different tactical approaches due to the mandated 4-4-3 system key among them but this targeting of the curriculum off the back of the Socceroos performances seems off the mark.

With the majority of the starting Socceroos over 23 years of age and thus only exposed to fringe elements of the curriculum in their formative years, it is a stretch to point to the curriculum for the cause of their perceived failings.

Advertisement
Tomas Rogic congratulated by team

(AAP Image/Paul Miller)

This is also true of the Olympic (Under 23) and Under 20 National teams. Their performances in recent years have continued to decline? Our Under 20s who consistently managed to make it out of their group in the Under 20 World Cups in the late nineties/ early 2000s have failed to even qualify for the World Cup in the last two attempts. Though these players like the senior Socceroos also have only had limited exposure to the NC.

However most concerning is our Under 17 National team. They are a team that would have been constantly working with the National Curriculum in their teenage years and probably the first generation that we can start to assess the results of the program. However, they failed to even win a match at the 2016 AFC Under 16 Championship. Scoring only two goals across three matches, the young Joeys were outclassed by Japan, Vietnam and Kyrgyzstan.

Many advocates of the curriculum and its implementation have maintained the line that it’s too early to judge the results. This is most likely true overall however does this mean we should refrain from measuring progress and offering critical assessment of the results so far?

I would argue that there are many elements of the National Curriculum have either missed the mark or the implementation of them at state level has not had the desired effect. I feel this is especially true at the Skill Acquisition Phase. It is widely acknowledge that the 10-13 age group is the most critical time for a players development.

One of the key principles of the revised 2013 edition of the National Curriculum is that too much emphasis on results is bad for development. However the document also highlights that in the Skill Acquisition Phase one of key attributes of players at this age group is they are competitive. Have we gone too far in removing the principle of competition in our player’s development? In my opinion yes we have.

Miniroos has done away with any focus on competition. In Victoria clubs nominate what level they wish to play at. No results are recorded, no ladders are kept. The rationale seems to always come back to the players don’t need them. But is this really true? It is quite accepted at senior level that friendlies are not played to the same intensity as competitive fixtures, yet we are expected to believe this is not true of junior players.

Advertisement

One of the common justifications for doing away with results, leagues and ladders is the argument that Holland, Spain, Germany and other elite countries within Europe also follow this approach. But this ignores that fact that many of the elite junior teams of Europe often travel and play in many cup competitions outside of their normal “friendly” leagues. This allows them to test their development against other elite players. This is something that conspires against us here in Australia with our large distances.

Australia's midfielder Massimo Luongo

(AFP PHOTO/GLYN KIRK)

FFA and the state leagues may need to look at introducing a similar approach here. An introduction of several elite youth cups may enable teams to truly pit their development against similar level players. However we seem to be moving in the other direction. There are now discussions taking place about whether to extend this principle of non-competition to Under 13 in NSW NPL.

Another area that the FFA and State Federations need to look closely at is the continuing broadening of the talent base.

Currently in the VNPL Under 12 competition there are 34 teams all at the same level. That means approximately 680 players all at the same standard. This completely flies in the face of the principle of pitting the best kids against the best. The justification used for this ridiculously broad level is that promotion/relegation places too much emphasis on winning.

I would like to see three graded leagues and two short seasons at this level with promotion and relegation. This would allow the more skilful kids to be pitch against their peers.

The news is not all bad, in March last year the FFA announced a pilot of a High Performance program at Westfields High School in NSW. One of the ongoing criticisms of the NC is that it focuses too much on club development and ignores that fact the vast majority of time that a player spends working on their skills is done outside of the club training environment. More programs that target players into non-structured playing time can only be a good thing.

Advertisement

Next month may just bring a tipping point in terms of the National Curriculum and the implementation of it. Our next generation of Joeys will be competing in the AFF Under 15 Youth Championships, with the squad made up of boys born in 2002 this will be a significant test of players who have gone through the full implementation of the National Curriculum.

If the results continue to show no sign of improvement the calls for change are only going to get louder.

close